My Humpty Dumpty Challenge

[GrowingSmaller]

.

OT: But, are there threads or a blog or something where you discuss what a Muslim Humanist is?

I chose "humanist" because I like Greek philosophical influences, and also because I think humanity is being denigrated by these ongoing wars. Also, "humanist" in a sense that belief in God is potentially essential for myself at least, to have a healthy human psycology.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I chose "humanist" because I like Greek philosophical influences, and also because I think humanity is being denigrated by these ongoing wars. Also, "humanist" in a sense that belief in God is potentially essential for myself at least, to have a healthy human psycology.

Thanks. That makes sense. I perhaps have been associating 'humanist' with lacking religion. The Wikipedia description is more all-encompassing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

I also think that humanity is being denigrated by all these ongoing wars. And it makes me angry that it's often my country that's involved in these wars.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You mean from Katherine Elwes Thomas, who started that rumor?

That was a lie. Prove it wasn't.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

I'm not aware of horses that have tried to put anything together, let alone an egg. Do you have some kind of evidence that horses are capable of attempting to put anything together - it need not be an egg.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They just didn't have superglue back then is all.......

 

[pgp_protector]

Where in the Documentation did we get that Humpty Dumpty is an Egg?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where in the Documentation did we get that Humpty Dumpty is an Egg?

As I said in my OP, we don't know who he was.

Nursery Rhyme - 1
Scientific Method - 0

 

[SkyWriting]

Suppose it did occur? metaphorically, of course.

Or assume it did then do some research.

There's your mistake. The burden of proof is on the side of the positive claim. All this tells us that it's a claim without merrit. Might as well be making claim about undetectable pink unicorns.

Consider doing some Hunting?

You see, AV, I happen to be a descendant of Richard III, and the fact that the nursery rhyme was an analogy about my ancestor has been passed down through my family for generations.

The evidence says your family is mistaken.

During the English Civil War, the church tower was used as a gun emplacement by the Royalist army, as they had a clear view looking towards Lexden and the Parliamentary forces who were camped there. They also had a forward cannon position, known as Fort Essex, located near the Lexden Road. On the morning of 14th July 1648 shortly after six, the Parliamentary cannons started firing on the tower of St Mary's with over sixty shots being fired over several hours. These heavy pieces of artillery, one of which fired a 35lb ball and the other an 18lb ball, sent cannon balls smashing into the church and the upper part of the tower. Eventually the tower was in ruins, the gunner, a one eyed man called Jack Thompson, had been killed as the cannon and tower came down.

Some think that the nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty refers to these events. Humpty Dumpty was a large cannon used to bombard the Parliamentary forces from the Town walls. After sustaining the attack for around a month with no significant success, the Parliamentary forces turned their attention to Humpty with cannon fire of their own. A successful shot to the foundations in which Humpty sat upon, ensured the cannon ‘had a big fall’ and came tumbling to the ground. The cannon was irretrievable by the Kings men and the town eventually fell under Parliamentarian control, who won the Civil War in 1649.

Colchester St Mary at the Wall

Humpty Dumpty

Origins of Humpty Dumpty and the Fall of Colchester

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I know what it is.

I'm just challenging academia to show me what it isn't.

If they can claim there's evidence that the Flood wasn't global, let them show there's evidence that Humpty Dumpty wasn't real.

Nope. There is good evidence that the flood could not have happened as described in the bible, it is not just a claim.

We don't have any good evidence that Humpty Dumpty was real. We have good evidence that it is a made up story. Any claim should have to have good evidence to support it before belief. The default position should be to not believe until there is evidence for belief. With your methodology you will believe anything and everything.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

The evidence suggests it did happen! It was written by an EYE WITNESS. And they had everything to lose by sharing this story as clearly people would write them off as insane.

 

[durangodawood]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

Whats the point of proving anything about fiction?

 

[Ophiolite]

Whats the point of proving anything about fiction?

I find myself asking, not for the first time, is there any point in responding to AV's posts? I think the answer is probably, No.

 

[dqhall]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

Humpty Dumpty was a cannon, according to a forgotten source.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humpty Dumpty was a cannon, according to a forgotten source.

I find it difficult to believe that a cannon that falls off of a wall couldn't be put back together again.

 

[dqhall]

I find it difficult to believe that a cannon that falls off of a wall couldn't be put back together again.

Believe it or not ... it is difficult to recast a cannon while you are under siege.
The Egg-citing Truth Behind Humpty Dumpty

 

[AV1611VET]

Believe it or not ... it is difficult to recast a cannon while you are under siege.
The Egg-citing Truth Behind Humpty Dumpty

Then it must have fallen inside the wall, as "all the king's horses and all the king's men" arrived to fix it.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

You do realize you're asking for proof of a negative. Right? You DO realize that, correct?

 

[Oneiric1975]

Sorry.

When I ask for actual, specific evidence for something, then get some philosophical "thats-not-how-it-works" excuse, I tend to get a little testy.

Logic isn't myopic. If YOU don't understand logic do NOT hold that against logic. And logic underlies science and inference.

Again: you cannot prove a negative.

Just like it is philosophically inane to say "There is no God". One may easily say "I fail to see evidence for God" but it is not logically robust to claim a universal negative.

 

[sjastro]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

Science is myopic.

How can you have evidence of non-occurrence (or non existence) when evidence is left by things that exist......
Does it make any sense to conclude the tooth fairy exists because no one can find evidence they do not exist?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realize you're asking for proof of a negative. Right? You DO realize that, correct?

Correct.

And what do scientists do, when they reduce God down to a myth, then ask for proof?

Aren't they doing the same thing?